[11021] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Mar 18 05:17:03 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: digex@ss1.digex.net (Doug Humphrey)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:58:18 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9403171326.A23181-0100000@ss1.digex.net> from "Doug Humphrey" at Mar 17, 94 01:26:10 pm
> >According to Washburns Nov 30 message DIGEX is a reseller? Do you agree
> >to that Doug? If so perhaps ERIK doesn't "see" Digex because it is not
> >a CIX member itself.
>
> Gordon, it isn't as simple as "yes" or "no"... As I understand it
> (which is not at ALL to say that it is being done this way currently
> by the CIX) it goes like this...
>
> Machines in "digex.net" land and "digex.com" land are all machines that are
> either used for our internal business (clearly we are a customer of ANS,
> and should benefit from the ANS CIX membership) or for sale of unix shell
> accounts only (again, not resale of IP services, should be allowed to
> route through the CIX under the ANS membership)
Agreed.
> or are terminal servers
> that are being used to provide part time "Personal-IP (tm)" service
> (only a single IP address assigned, not at all intended for routing,
> just a way that a customer can trade up from VT100 to real GUI interfaces)
> (I feel that those customers should be able to get the CIX access
> also, considering that they are not people who we are "reselling" IP
> access to, they are just using IP as a personal interface into the net.
Disagree.
You ARE reselling IP access to those people. If not, then you could
firewall the accounts so they could see only your hosts via IP. But
that's not what you're doing, nor is it what we're doing.
We <used> to have SLIP accounts that could only see our systems. Those
were not "IP resale" by definition, since you couldn't telnet off-MCSNet
(as an example) from them. What I do within our infrastructure is my
business. As soon as I reach out to other networks it no longer is my
business alone.
I suspect that if you asked the customer what he was buying, he would
perkily say "IP access to the net". If that's not IP resale I don't know
what is. Its double-speak to try to claim that is not what you're doing;
you know darn well that is what the customer is <buying>, and <why> he or
she is buying it -- because he or she wants to route <packets> -- IP
packets - to and from the net. You're doing that job for money. How can
you possibly claim you're not "routing" those packets? You sure as heck
are!
By what definition is this not "IP resale"?
> Other domains are registered for our IP customers, who we are
> reselling to, ranging from SLIP accounts that get class C blocks,
> to customers with faster lines.
Yep, all of which are resale of IP services.
> So, the problem is that we are both a reseller, and a non-reseller.
> The ANS CIX membership, as I understand the rules to be today,
> effects the two sides of our business differently.
I, and many others, define the line at the shell account. When you give
someone a pipe from your premesis, whether it be full time or dial-up,
you're selling IP service. You are routing it for them from your gear to
theirs, and that's the definition I've always worked with and used.
It also happens to be the common definition that is generally accepted
within the industry.
> In fact, I would guess that there are a number of "shell account"
> sellers out there who are looking at the revenue that is possible
> with resale of IP services. Once they start selling any, they are
> in the same boat as we; what part of their operations is covered by
> their providers CIX membership, and what part if not?
Only their own internal machines. The rest is not.
> Doug Humphrey
> President
> Digital Express Group, Inc.
> doug@digex.net
Doug, if you are routing via the CIX for your customers systems (not your
own internal machines) then you should have a membership. Note that <at
any time> the other CIX members could decide to refuse to pass your customer's
traffic via the CIX. If you structure your network number layout such that
the only way to do this is to cut off YOUR internal systems (and some small
providers could deliberately do this) then the choice comes down to locking
you out entirely or not doing so. The point here is that nothing in the
CIX agreement proscribes MCSNet, PSI, Alternet or others from doing this
tomorrow.
I also argue that if you do not disclose these risks to your customers,
ESPECIALLY your commercial leased-line customers, you are doing them a
disservice at best.
You are, by your resale, placing a load on the CIX infrastructure and thus
doesn't it strike you as at least a little unfair to expect the CIX and its
members to provide that service to you (for your profit-making intent)
for free?
I think so. Pony up to the bar if you want to have a settlement-free IP
conduit which you wish to participate in. Or use the "backdoor" ANS
connection for as long as it lasts, but don't complain when you find
that things don't work quite as you think they should down the line.
Note that I'm in the same position you are on this. As I believe in the
CIX model, and am not interested in trying to squeeze around the intent of
an organization, MCSNet joined the CIX. Did that show up on my balance
sheet? You bet it did. Was it worth the money? I think so -- for
philosophical (no settlement) reasons as well as technical ones.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
